More like Disney's economy benefits from the treaty.The US economy would probably benefit more from people at flea markets being able to sell compilation DVDs of old public domain Donald Duck cartoons.

The internet is a disruptive technology (or suite of technologies if you like) when it comes to copyright, and it also expedites the development of more disruptive technologies.

The internet has made it far easier to access copyrighted materials, but also far easier to create them (e.g. ePubs and the rise of self-publishing as a legitimate way to get your book into the market). If the goal of copyright is to encourage the production of copyrightable materials, then it should reflect the actual needs of authors and other creative individuals for a limited distribution monopoly; if technology has made it less necessary to give someone a multi-decade monopoly (i.e. the copyright term) to get them to produce a work in the first place, then laws and treaties should be revisited to make sure they're not giving out excessive monopoly periods and creating a drag on innovation when the goal is to encourage innovation.

The Berne Convention never contemplated the disruptions caused by the internet or the economic realities that resulted therefrom, and should be revisited to make sure it's not causing a drag on innovation and hobbling innovators more than its helping.

I can see that digital sampling in music probably should cause copyright regulations to be revisited in that industry, but I still don't see how cheap and easy production/distribution should affect copyright terms in the book business, since it seems that very little of the business is based on creating derivative works. However, that's my problem. Thanks for explaining.

The GOP folded to the lobbyists once again and did what was wrong for America.

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymadness

Yup. Pure spinelessness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Yep... RIAA and MPAA reminded them where the money comes from.

That's one possibility. Another possibility is that the posting was a ploy to squeeze larger contributions from the *AA.

It turns out that a bright, young, clear thinking staffer posted it without getting approval. He posted a number of comments on the reddit article. He claims to want to start a discussion with the aim to achieve a sensible copyright system. I hope he succeeds.

I'm all for shorter copyright terms, but I don't see what time/technology has to do with it. Why should the terms be different today than they were a few decades ago? I've seen this from a few posters, so it seems obvious to some, but I don't get the connection.

Doesn't the same reasoning apply to the multiple lengthening of copyright terms in the US during the previous century?

That's one possibility. Another possibility is that the posting was a ploy to squeeze larger contributions from the *AA.

It turns out that a bright, young, clear thinking staffer posted it without getting approval. He posted a number of comments on the reddit article. He claims to want to start a discussion with the aim to achieve a sensible copyright system. I hope he succeeds.

He's probably been excommunicated from the party. They can do that in a lot of states, especially ones where you have to be a registered party member to vote in the primary.

I can see that digital sampling in music probably should cause copyright regulations to be revisited in that industry, but I still don't see how cheap and easy production/distribution should affect copyright terms in the book business, since it seems that very little of the business is based on creating derivative works. However, that's my problem. Thanks for explaining.

I'm not sure what if any copyright reforms would be needed for ebooks (VAT on the other hand...) however other forms of creative content I can see some easy examples.

Take music. At the moment if I hear a song on the radio or a cd, I can play my own version of that song (cover) and go sell it on iTunes (assuming I was good enough, which I assure you I am not )

To do the above legally, I just need to inform the artist I'm covering their song and using a mandatory mechanical license, which they cannot refuse. Then I pay them something like 9 cents per copy I sell*

However, the internet has brought about amateurs wanting to record themselves and let the world here them _for free_. Amateurs from the beginners to quite accomplished musicians who want to record their playing or singing and pop it on youtube with no commercial motives.

That's where the problems begin. Under existing copyright laws, each view regardless of the fact you're giving it away, would require a payment of the mechanical license rate, but worse than that, because you've video'd your performance you also need a sync license and those cannot be forcefully obtained at a fixed price. Instead you'll find artists demanding 5-15 thousand dollars for a sync license.

People are just ignoring those laws and posting their non commercial playing on youtube anyway. Google is trying to give the copyright holders ad revenue if they flag such content rather than take it down, but neither of these options is a good one imo.

Sync licenses should be obtainable in a similar forceable way as mechanical licenses if the video is to go with a cover and ideally no fees should be required if the result is freely distributed and not used in a commercial way.

Now, when it comes to taking an existing piece of music and using it as a backing track, again if it's non-commercial, I think there should be a way to either license the usage for free or a small amount. If the usage is in any way commercial such as sold or used for promotional purposes, then you pay the asking price and recoup it through the course of business or find other music.

I don't have a solution, but I do think copyright in general needs revisiting and the exceptions for when you can/cannot legally do something need revising to account for ways the public would like to use material that would not have adverse impact on the content producers.

tl;dr it's legally more viable for me to record my own version of a popular song and sell it on itunes than it is for me to record myself practicing a popular song and show it off to people for free on youtube. Seems backwards.

* I'm not 100% on the exact amounts of payment but ball park that's good enough for this example.
** I'm not a lawyer so this entire post could be a total fabrication, besides which it's not written on paper so isn't real and if it's isn't real advise then I didn't really give it so no attempt to blame me if it's totally wrong

tl;dr it's legally more viable for me to record my own version of a song and sell it on itunes than it is for me to record myself practicing a popular song and show it off to people for free on youtube. Seems backwards.

Legally more viable, but functionally not. If you don't have the youtube channel, then you won't get many sales. It's all about getting attention and advertising, and the RIAA wants to choke that off from anyone who hasn't signed a record deal.

Legally more viable, but functionally not. If you don't have the youtube channel, then you won't get many sales. It's all about getting attention and advertising, and the RIAA wants to choke that off from anyone who hasn't signed a record deal.

Yes, there's a lot of issues marketing wise (not to mention talent wise), but it strikes me as silly that joe public can't upload clips of themselves singing or playing a certain song. Yet, they could sell a cd/mp3 of the same (but not a video of it).

Clearly it's not silly from an artist pov, the former gets them no money, the latter gets them at least mechanical license payments.

However, when it's unlikely that the free version will harm artists considering they're covers and not non-commercial/amateur, I think the laws around that need revising. If anything, the more the public cover a song on youtube the more that song is heard and the more likely people will want to buy the original version. Maybe that's just my experience and not a general trend though

Either way, the internet is causing some laws that previously did make sense to be problematic. That's not to say the original laws are bad or wrong, just that they're perhaps in need of tweaking.

However, when it's unlikely that the free version will harm artists considering they're covers and not non-commercial/amateur, I think the laws around that need revising. If anything, the more the public cover a song on youtube the more that song is heard and the more likely people will want to buy the original version. Maybe that's just my experience and not a general trend though

I'd be surprised if they're thinking that far ahead. Modern business thought doesn't go past the end of the quarter, at the most. The CEO, CFO, and Board demand profits now.

I'd add "and stockholders," but most stocks haven't paid dividends since the dotcom bubble in the '90s. Dividend is still as nasty a thing to say as the N-bomb in some financial circles.

A search on the URL turns up 2 hits. Its announcement in the comments of some conservative blog two days ago and this thread. Looks like Google crawls new posts on mobileread quickly and that knowledge of the poll is microscopic.

* I'm not 100% on the exact amounts of payment but ball park that's good enough for this example.
** I'm not a lawyer so this entire post could be a total fabrication, besides which it's not written on paper so isn't real and if it's isn't real advise then I didn't really give it so no attempt to blame me if it's totally wrong

As we've already learned in another thread, if it's not written on paper then no one could have possibly read your post anyway. But your examples were really helpful, and made the point way better than I did. With the march of technology, I feel like the mismatch between strict copyright law and what people actually consider to be right and wrong with respect to copyrightable materials is just going to get worse.